283 Responses

might just be the same quandary as well-heeled hipsters in Che t-shirts.

Good comparison. (And I say that as someone who long ago owned a Che shirt as a popular culture statement rather than a political one.) Che Guevara was a thug -- although not on the millennial scale of Bin Laden.

(i) if you’ve borrowed the word into English, then you’re under no obligation to keep the macron; this is consistent with the disappearance of accent marks on French borrowings such as deja vu.

I wasn't aware that the diacritical marks had disappeared from déjà vu. I'd certainly use them, except in a very quick message on a system that didn't easily let me add them.

Accents are important on English words that are derived from other languages: a café is different from a cafe. And in Māori macrons are even more vital, since there are many more opportunities for meanings to change. It's just a pity that the scholars and missionaries chose a diacritical mark that's less common in European languages, and hence has become difficult to type on most computer systems.

Anyone who sees Bin Laden in those terms simply doesn't understand what he believed.

Sat in Indonesia in a barber's shop a few years back. After the haircut the barber traditionally pulls out a cut-throat razor, shaves you and then tidies up all the edges - rather wonderfully, and it's quite a treat to have a haircut in a small local joint. This time, however, as he was sharpening the blade on the leather strop I looked up and saw a large picture of Osama pinned on the ceiling, grinning down at me.

I excused myself from the last part of the grooming, quickly paid and went to the car.

Murderous and a thousand other things, yes. An idiot? Perhaps not – he achieved huge parts of what he wanted to achieve.

That's a fair point. Somewhat imprecise of me. I do feel comfortable calling him an idiot, though. In much the same way I feel comfortable calling creationists and abortion clinic bombers idiots. His religious beliefs are similarly deranged and ridiculous, and for them to have guided his actions to the extent they clearly did suggests a worrying lack of critical thought.

Well, the tāngata whenua of this place are the Māori. No idea what these "Maori" people keep writing about, though. It's a common word and I've come to think that it means the writer doesn't know how to spell key words in one of the country's official languages.

, through meaning evolution and/or cultural appropriation.But I’d also note that the meaning used in English of “person belonging to an ethnic group distinct from European settlers and indigenous to Aotearoa/New Zealand” was not the original meaning of the source word within te reo (= ’normal’). *shrug*

(Though I take the point – there is an argument to make about whether the cultural appropriation [as signalled by the loss of diacritics] is appropriate.)

No idea what these "Maori" people keep writing about, though. It's a common word and I've come to think that it means the writer doesn't know how to spell key words in one of the country's official languages.

Or, to be fair, that they can't find it in the Character Map application or don't know that it's &#257; in HTML. Or that it gets mangled by your braindead word processor or CMS. It may be much easier in many workplaces than it was when I was at TPK 5 years ago, when even for an organisation with a Māori kaupapa it was a nightmare trying to get consistency.

Drifting off - slightly - on a tangent, I think Lawrence Wright today in The New Yorker is a must read:

It’s the end of the Second World War, and the United States is deciding what to do about two immense, poor, densely populated countries in Asia. America chooses one of the countries, becoming its benefactor. Over the decades, it pours billions of dollars into that country’s economy, training and equipping its military and its intelligence services. The stated goal is to create a reliable ally with strong institutions and a modern, vigorous democracy. The other country, meanwhile, is spurned because it forges alliances with America’s enemies.

We are arguing about strokes of ink in a language while discussing the death of a goon who is responsible for how many deaths???? Pick a number.

I don't really think there is any difference with how the seals killed him or how the 1700 suicide bombers in Iraq did their job. The bombers were made sure they knew who their target was, the seals certainly did too. The bombers will get their 72 virgins, the seals will get their USA medal. On a personal scale, both parties probably think they got a good deal. But at least the seals get to wake up afterwards.

Yes; that's what I meant by "official support" above.I don't think we actually disagree here; if you're in a computer environment that allows it, and if you need to distinguish different words in te reo Māori, then the macron is the recommended solution. In other computer environments, then, as you've stated, other workarounds may be necessary (given that if you're using te reo Māori, you still really do need to mark length somehow).

Well, the tāngata whenua of this place are the Māori. No idea what these “Maori” people keep writing about, though. It’s a common word and I’ve come to think that it means the writer doesn’t know how to spell key words in one of the country’s official languages.

I’m more convinced by the practical argument that the long or short vowel sound can distinguish two words that are spelled identically otherwise. Other writers get around this by using the double “a”.

Oddly enough, we can only have this discussion about daily use because the technology has improved to enable it, and allow the Maori Language Commission to recommend the use of the macron.

I don’t really think there is any difference with how the seals killed him or how the 1700 suicide bombers in Iraq did their job... The bombers will get their 72 virgins, the seals will get their USA medal.

Two things:One: The bombers will, in point of fact, not get 72 virgins. Two: It bothers me that you see these two things as in any way equivalent.